card_rulings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses caching, per-call request caps with a note when more remain, a note when no Q&A discusses both cards (interaction unverified), and the OCG-vs-TCG caveat with an instruction to quote rather than extend rulings. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a read-only tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then labeled lines for with_card and query, then return-shape and caveats. Dense but every sentence adds something; the source parenthetical and return-field enumeration make it longer than strictly minimal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (title, question, answer, date, translation status, names_in_text) and the ordering rule that text-matching Q&As precede omnibus entries. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the load: it explains with_card (dual-card filtering) and query (all-words match) with examples, and the cap note implies limit's behavior. It does not directly define the `limit` or `card` parameters' formats, so it falls slightly short of full compensation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Official FAQ and Q&A rulings for a card', naming the authoritative source (Konami OCG database via YGOResources). This is clearly distinct from sibling lookup/search tools like card_lookup or search_cards, which return card data rather than rulings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete usage guidance per mode, e.g. with_card is 'best for "does X work with Y" questions' and query filters by words like "cost banish". However, it never names an alternative tool or states when not to use this one, so routing versus siblings is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.